V. Krishnan v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Issuing Officer & Ors.

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDate : 19..03..2008Coram :The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. MURUGESANandThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. PERIYA KARUPPIAHWrit Petition Nos: 2656, 6446 and35007 of 2007W.P. No: 2656 of 2007V. KrishnanDoor No: 17/9, Ramasamy Garden St.Royapettah,Chennai – 600 014.... Petitioner-vs-1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Issuing Officer and Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Chennai, Collectorate, Chennai District.2. The District Vigilance Committee rep. by Chairman and District Collector, Collectorate, Chennai District.... RespondentsW.P. No: 6446 of 2007 K. JothishreeDoor No: 17/9, Ramasamy Garden St.Royapettah,Chennai – 600 014.... Petitioner-vs-1. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Engineering Education Admission 2006, Anna University, Chennai – 600 025.1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Commissioner of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai – 25.3. The Principal, St. Peter's Engineering College, Avadi, Chennai – 54.... RespondentsW.P. No: 35007 of 2007 K. JothishreeDoor No: 17/9, Ramasamy Garden St.Royapettah,Chennai – 600 014.... Petitioner-vs-1. The Commissioner of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.2. The Controller of Examinations, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.3. The Principal, St. Peter's Engineering College, Avadi, Chennai – 54.... Respondents.. .. ..Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus (i)To callfor records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent inNa.Ka.Vu.1/53870/2006 dated 08.01.2007 and quash the same and directthe 1st respondent to issue Community Certificate to the daughter ofthe petitioner K.Jothishree that she belongs to Kurumans Community(Prayer in WP 2656/2007) (ii)Writ of Mandamus to approve theadmission of the petitioner for the admission to B.E. (InformationTechnology) Course and permit the petitioner to write allexaminations (Prayer in WP 6446/07) (iii) Writ of Mandamus to directthe 2nd respondent to issue hall ticket to the petitioner to writ allexamintions for B.E.(Information Technology) and to publish all theresults without insisting upon the production of the CommunityCertificate (Prayer in WP 35007/2007).2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner in all : Mr. S. Doraisamy,the three writ petitions For respondent : Mr. K. Balasubramani R1 & R2 in WP 2656/07 Addl. Govt. Pleader R1 in WP 35007/07 R2 in WP 6446/07For R1 in WP 6446/07 and :Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal R2 in 35007/07 for M/s.G.M.Mani AssociatesC O M M O N O R D E R(Order of the Court was madeby D.Murugesan)All the above three writ petitions relate to the issue ofcommunity certificate to one K. Jothishree, D/o. V. Krishnan. InW.P. No: 2656 of 2007, the father of the said K. Jothishree hasapproached this Court questioning the order of the Schedule TribeCertificate Issuing Officer and Personal Assistant (General) to theCollector of Chennai dated 08.01.2007. It appears that thepetitioner had applied for issue of community certificate in favourof his daughter K. Jothishree certifying that she belong to HinduKuruman community which is notified to be a Schedule Tribe community.The said application was made on the basis of the communitycertificate issued in favour of the said V. Krishnan and his wife V.Jamunadevi, certifying that both of them belong to Kuruman community,a notified schedule tribe. However, by the impugned order dated08.01.2007, his request was rejected on the ground that thepetitioner has not satisfied as to the manner in which thosecertificates were obtained from the competent authority. 2. We have heard Mr. S. Doraisamy, the learned senior counselappearing for the petitioner in all the writ petitions andMr.K.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Government Pleader. Priorto the issue of G.O. Ms. No: 2137 dated 11.11.1989, the Tahsildar hadthe jurisdiction over issuance of community certificate in respect ofthe schedule tribes. However by the said Government Order, thepower to grant community certificate for the applicant seeking issueof community certificate namely Schedule Tribes vest with the RevenueDivisional Officer. It is the case of the petitioner namely V.Krishnan that he was issued with a community certificate by the3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tahsildar, Mylapore, Triplicane Taluk, on 12.06.1981 certifyinghimself to belong to Hindu Kuruman community and equally thepetitioner has also produced such certificate issued in favour of hiswife by name V. Jamunadevi, issued by the same Tahsildar, Mylapore,Triplicane Taluk, Chennai, on the same date. Based on the abovecertificates, the petitioner was employed and is presently working inUnited India Insurance Company Ltd. and his wife is also working inRailways. 3. The question as to whether those certificates can beconsidered to be valid came up for consideration before the SupremeCourt in the judgment reported in JT 1997 (7) S.C. 660 (R. Kandasamyvs. The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust) wherein the Apex Court hasheld that the community certificate issued to a Schedule Tribecandidate by the Tahsildar prior to 11.11.1989 is a good and validCommunity Certificate for all purpose so long as such a certificateis not cancelled. 4. In fact, this Court in a number of cases has not only heldthat those certificates are valid and but also held that withoutcancelling such certificates, demanding fresh certificate be producedfrom the competent authority also is unsustainable. It is not thecase of the respondent that the certificates issued in favour of V.Krishnan and his wife V. Jamunadevi have been cancelled in a mannerknown to law and as a necessary corolary those certificates areinvalid and hence, on the strength of those two certificates,petitioner's application for issue of community certificate to hisdaughter cannot be considered. In those circumstances, the refusalof the respondent to rely upon those certificates solely on theground that petitioner has not satisfied as to the manner in whichthose certificates were obtained from the competent authority cannotbe sustained. Even otherwise, the said finding is not supported byany material fact or document. It is only on a presumption. Underthese circumstances, the order impugned in W.P. No: 2656 of 2007refusing the grant of certificate in favour of the daughter of thepetitioner is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is setaside. That writ petition viz. W.P. No: 2656 of 2007 is allowed. 5. Though it is a general rule that this court shall not issue apositive direction to the authorities to grant a certificate andwould normally direct the authorities to consider and pass in thelight of the observations made in the order, the said rule hasexception. When this court had found that the petitioner had beenunjustly denied the issuance of the community certificate and in theevent this court is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to thecommunity certificate based on the materials placed, it would only be4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ justified in issuing a positive direction to the authorities,directing them to issue the community certificate. 6. In fact, the power of the court to issue the positivedirections has been recognized by the Supreme Court in "THECOMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, GIAN PRAKASH, NEW DELHI &ANOTHER v. K.S.JAGANNATHAN & ANOTHER (AIR 1987 SC 537)", the SupremeCourt has observed as follows:-"There is thus no doubt that the High Courts inIndia exercising their jurisdiction under Article226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus ora writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass ordersand give necessary directions where the Governmentor a public authority has failed to exercise orhas wrongly exercised the discretion conferredupon it by a statute or a rule or a policydecision of the Government or has exercised suchdiscretion mala fide or on irrelevantconsiderations or by ignoring the relevantconsiderations and materials or in such a manneras to frustrate the object of conferring suchdiscretion or the policy for implementing whichsuch discretion has been conferred. In all suchcases and in any other fit and proper case a HighCourt can, in the exercise of its jurisdictionunder Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or awrit in the nature of mandamus or pass orders andgive directions to compel the performance in aproper and lawful manner of the discretionconferred upon the Government or a publicauthority, and in a proper case, in order toprevent injustice resulting to the concernedparties, the Court may itself pass an order orgive directions which the Government or the publicauthority should have passed or given had itproperly and lawfully exercised its discretion."7. In "AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST & ANOTHER v. STATE OF BIHAR &OTHERS (AIR 1996 SC 1649)", the Supreme Court has observed asfollows:-"In the matter of grant of affiliation, it isordinarily for the State Government afterconsulting the Medical Council of India to arriveat a decision. However, if it is found that the5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ affiliation is being withheld unreasonably or thedecision is being prolonged for one reason or theother, this Court would, though reluctantly, beconstrained to exercise jurisdiction."8. In view of the above, the 1st respondent in writ petitionNo.2656 of 2007, The Schedule Tribe Certificate Issuing Officer andPersonal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Chennai, ChennaiDistrict, is directed to issue the certificate in favour of K.Jothishree, certifying herself to belong to Hindu Kuruman community.This direction shall be complied with within a period of two monthsfrom to-day. 9. The writ petition in W.P. No: 6446 has been filed by K.Jothishree, D/o. V. Krishnan, for issue of directions to therespondents to approve her admission to B.E. ( InformationTechnology) Course and permit her to write all the examinations.This writ petition came to be filed on the ground that thoughpetitioner's father V. Krishnan and mother V. Jamunadevi were issuedwith a certificate dated 18.08.1991 by the Tahsildar, Mylapore,Triplicane Taluk, that they belong to Hindu Kurumun community, anotified Schedule Tribe, the application made by the petitionerbefore the competent authority was not considered and it was keptpending. In view of the above stated circumstance, she wascompelled to approach this Court with the above prayer. The samepetitioner had filed W.P. No: 35007 of 2007 seeking for a directionto the 2nd respondent therein to issue hall ticket to the petitonerto write all examinations for B.E. (Information Technology) and topublish the results without insisting upon the production of thecommunity certificate. This Court had granted the interim relief forattending the classes and taking up the examinations. In W.P. No:2656 of 2007 filed by the father of K.Jothishree we have held thatthis petitioner is entitled for possession of a communitycertificate certifying that she belongs to Hindu Kuruman community, anotified schedule tribe and we have directed The Schedule TribeCertificate Issuing Officer and Personal Assistant (General) to theCollector of Chennai, Chennai District, to issue such a certificate 6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ within a period of two months from today. Therefore, there is noreason to reject the claim of the writ petitioner in these two writpetitions. Accordingly these two writ petitions viz. W.P. Nos: 6446and 35007 of 2007 are allowed as prayed for. All the connectedmiscellaneous petitions shall stand disposed of. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrargpTo1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Issuing Officer and Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of Chennai, Collectorate, Chennai District.2. The Chairman and District Collector, The District Vigilance Committee Collectorate, Chennai District.3. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Engineering Education Admission 2006, Anna University, Chennai – 600 025.4. The Commissioner of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai – 25.7 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The Controller of Examinations, Anna University, Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.+4ccs to Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate Sr 15604,15605,15505,15506+1cc to M/s. G.M.Mani Associates, Sr 15806+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 15833KU (CO)km/3.4.W.P. Nos: 2656, 6446 and 35007 of 20078